Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I get what you are saying for the most part, but boozer imo does not have an ideal contract.

As far as amare goes what people fail to realize is when amare first signed with the knicks the 1st half of the season amare was a candidate for mvp, they had a good record, then they trade for melo and everything just changes for amare with the injuries and trying to learn how to play with melo. People just forgot how good amare and the knicks was before they got melo.

No, people don't fail to realize anything. Who cares if through 40 games Amare was considered an MVP candidate if he's sucked since then and has routinely been out of the lineup, seeing his team perform better when he's not in it.

People seem to forget how good the Bulls are with Boozer. Amare's contract is an albatross. Boozer's is acceptable.

No, people don't fail to realize anything. Who cares if through 40 games Amare was considered an MVP candidate if he's sucked since then and has routinely been out of the lineup, seeing his team perform better when he's not in it.

People seem to forget how good the Bulls are with Boozer. Amare's contract is an albatross. Boozer's is acceptable.

We are not even going to discuss amare, but to say boozer is acceptable is beyond me. How is that possible when he is the 3rd best player on the team(not counting rose) noah and deng is more valuable than boozer. Just because a guy has a couple of good games does not mean he is acceptable. I know boozer does not play defense but atleast give me 18&10 a game and he can hardly do that. So i ask you why is boozer acceptable?

This shouldn't even be a question. There is no possible way to explain why anyone would say that Boozer was a worse signing than Wallace. Just no legitimate argument for that.

Troll question at it's finest. Way to go JB.

Originally Posted by bullishsince87

We are not even going to discuss amare, but to say boozer is acceptable is beyond me. How is that possible when he is the 3rd best player on the team(not counting rose) noah and deng is more valuable than boozer. Just because a guy has a couple of good games does not mean he is acceptable. I know boozer does not play defense but atleast give me 18&10 a game and he can hardly do that. So i ask you why is boozer acceptable?

You should probably do a little research into Boozer's numbers since he has been a Bull, before challenging Shammy to a debate on Boozer's production vs. his contract. (And I don't mean Points or Rebounds per game numbers either.)

This shouldn't even be a question. There is no possible way to explain why anyone would say that Boozer was a worse signing than Wallace. Just no legitimate argument for that.

Troll question at it's finest. Way to go JB.

You should probably do a little research into Boozer's numbers since he has been a Bull, before challenging Shammy to a debate on Boozer's production vs. his contract. (And I don't mean Points or Rebounds per game numbers either.)

I dont need to do research i watch games, ill debate anybody on carlos boozer play, from a salary standpoint to a production standpoint.

The best thing about carlos boozer is he talks on defense, he cant play defense but at least he talk. Now you guys can throw all your little fancy stats at me, but the matter of fact is boozer's production does not match his salary plain and simple.

I dont need to do research i watch games, ill debate anybody on carlos boozer play, from a salary standpoint to a production standpoint.

The best thing about carlos boozer is he talks on defense, he cant play defense but at least he talk. Now you guys can throw all your little fancy stats at me, but the matter of fact is boozer's production does not match his salary plain and simple.

People like you crack me up. Just because I can use and decipher statistics doesn't mean I don't watch games as much as you do. It is a complete misnomer to cite that as an excuse why you believe one thing, and someone who looks at stats is wrong in their belief.

Almost ALL players in the NBA are over paid. So to look directly at a contract and production to base your beliefs on what is acceptable is ridiculous and ignorant. What you think Carlos Boozer should be doing for the salary he receives is COMPLETELY irrelevant to reality.

Based on what players at his position, making the salary he does or more, Boozer is adequate. It's not great. But it's not bad either. You say you watch games...great, so do I. So your little dig by saying "I dont need to do research i watch games" and "Now you guys can throw all your little fancy stats at me" make you look silly and uninformed. I trust my eyes more than I trust yours. And I trust stats combined with what my eyes see more than I trust your eyes and biased opinion, without any stats to make your ramblings valid.

People like you crack me up. Just because I can use and decipher statistics doesn't mean I don't watch games as much as you do. It is a complete misnomer to cite that as an excuse why you believe one thing, and someone who looks at stats is wrong in their belief.

Almost ALL players in the NBA are over paid. So to look directly at a contract and production to base your beliefs on what is acceptable is ridiculous and ignorant. What you think Carlos Boozer should be doing for the salary he receives is COMPLETELY irrelevant to reality.

Based on what players at his position, making the salary he does or more, Boozer is adequate. It's not great. But it's not bad either. You say you watch games...great, so do I. So your little dig by saying "I dont need to do research i watch games" and "Now you guys can throw all your little fancy stats at me" make you look silly and uninformed. I trust my eyes more than I trust yours. And I trust stats combined with what my eyes see more than I trust your eyes and biased opinion, without any stats to make your ramblings valid.

Lol. No one is saying boozer is the only overpaid player in the nba, i know there are many of them, as well as there are some under paid players as well.

And if your not judging a player based off his production and salary, what are you judging him own? Leadership? Noah takes that roll he is the heart of this team, deng is mr versatile, rose is mr everything. Can you name me one thing boozer does great? Im not going to sit here and continue to talk bad about boozer, i think he is a decent player, he has just been a disappointment as a member of the chicago bulls and there is no stat out there that can change my mind about that.

We are not even going to discuss amare, but to say boozer is acceptable is beyond me. How is that possible when he is the 3rd best player on the team(not counting rose) noah and deng is more valuable than boozer. Just because a guy has a couple of good games does not mean he is acceptable. I know boozer does not play defense but atleast give me 18&10 a game and he can hardly do that. So i ask you why is boozer acceptable?

It's abso****inglutely acceptable man. Let's look at last year... Carlos Boozer last year posted the following:

a 54.9ts% ... 53.2efg% ... 16.1trb% ... 23.8usg% ... 108 ORtg in 66 games played and 1,948 minutes. He was paid $13,500,000 last season.

Last year, the league average for power forwards that played in 40+ games and played 30+mpg was the following: a 54.0ts% ... 49.5efg% ... 14.8trb% ... 25.1usg% ... ___ ORtg .... 61 games and 2,080 minutes played.

that's $186,283,597 for 16 players. So, for a starting power forward last year, the average cost was $11,642,725. So that would be your market value for the average starting power forward. Average. Boozer was paid less than $2,000,000 more than the average last year.

When compared to those players, he had the 12th highest usg%, the 8th highest ts%, the 3rd highest efg%, and the 4th highest trb%.

When compared to the entire league last year, Boozer was t-16th in made field goals, the 11th most defensive rebounds, the 16th most total rebounds, the 20th highest efg%, and the 10th highest trb%.

All of that for only playing in 29.5mpg. The guy's contract so far has absolutely 100% been acceptable. Anyone saying it hasn't been is ignorant. If you want to argue he won't be worth his contract for the remaining time he'll be with Chicago, then fine. But we won't truly know until after-the-fact when we can compare him to the league's starting power forwards and their salaries, and his numbers relative to those players and the entire league.

that's $186,283,597 for 16 players. So, for a starting power forward last year, the average cost was $11,642,725. So that would be your market value for the average starting power forward. Average. Boozer was paid less than $2,000,000 more than the average last year.

You cannot compare Boozer's relative dollar value with a field as awfully skewed as those players you listed. Sure there are some overpaid individuals there as well, but averages with dollar figures simply never turn out to be proper considering the timing of contract negotiations in the NBA.

The best part is that Boozer's production actually improves if you compare the relative worth of the players presented with any reasonable estimation of compensation due.

All of that for only playing in 29.5mpg.

Is this to imply Boozer's production somehow increases if he plays more minutes, that he's efficient, or what?

The guy's contract so far has absolutely 100% been acceptable. Anyone saying it hasn't been is ignorant.

Boozer's contract has not been worth it when one looks at the rest of the team, what the Bulls were slated to pay players, and the cost of not successfully winning a title. The Bulls' salary cap figure now dictates what the team can and cannot do to the degree of legitimately considering amnestying one of the better forwards in the league. There's no ignorance in taking that position at all given the willingness of the team to commit to these players, nor is it a decision that should have been beyond the scope of this management's team to foresee if things went poorly. Boozer was simply the best the Bulls could buy at the time they had money available and it required an 'all-in' bet that the core players assembled could win a title.

I have always believed the Bulls were nothing more than several possessions away from a title shot, yet when you pair an expensive free agent signing along with some truly massive contract extensions for the current roster - the Bulls became financially hamstrung.

When those "few possessions" don't go your way, the team should not be looking at re-tooling the entirety of their bench to fit under a luxury tax figure and I can say that while being fully cognizant of Rose's injury with a team looking to rebuild in line with his recovery.

Boozer was never a player on any particular vertical trajectory coming to the Bulls given his age and I'm glad you are just as willing to admit the possibility that Boozer's performance declines than he remains consistent or improve.

By taking this stance, it's easy to show that this Bulls front office has taken quite the risk in pooling all of their allotted cap space into a few players they have amassed. It flies contrary to common belief that the front office is in any way conservative or risk averse. Hindsight will be 20/20, and I fear that by the time Boozer is gone, the Bulls will have been no closer than that 4-1 series loss to Miami to winning a title.

It's abso****inglutely acceptable man. Let's look at last year... Carlos Boozer last year posted the following:

a 54.9ts% ... 53.2efg% ... 16.1trb% ... 23.8usg% ... 108 ORtg in 66 games played and 1,948 minutes. He was paid $13,500,000 last season.

Last year, the league average for power forwards that played in 40+ games and played 30+mpg was the following: a 54.0ts% ... 49.5efg% ... 14.8trb% ... 25.1usg% ... ___ ORtg .... 61 games and 2,080 minutes played.

that's $186,283,597 for 16 players. So, for a starting power forward last year, the average cost was $11,642,725. So that would be your market value for the average starting power forward. Average. Boozer was paid less than $2,000,000 more than the average last year.

When compared to those players, he had the 12th highest usg%, the 8th highest ts%, the 3rd highest efg%, and the 4th highest trb%.

When compared to the entire league last year, Boozer was t-16th in made field goals, the 11th most defensive rebounds, the 16th most total rebounds, the 20th highest efg%, and the 10th highest trb%.

All of that for only playing in 29.5mpg. The guy's contract so far has absolutely 100% been acceptable. Anyone saying it hasn't been is ignorant. If you want to argue he won't be worth his contract for the remaining time he'll be with Chicago, then fine. But we won't truly know until after-the-fact when we can compare him to the league's starting power forwards and their salaries, and his numbers relative to those players and the entire league.

Wow i have heard it all, you guys fancy stats and crunching up numbers basically states that boozer is underated and under paid. I will no longer discuss carlos boozer anymore.

You cannot compare Boozer's relative dollar value with a field as awfully skewed as those players you listed. Sure there are some overpaid individuals there as well, but averages with dollar figures simply never turn out to be proper considering the timing of contract negotiations in the NBA.

The best part is that Boozer's production actually improves if you compare the relative worth of the players presented with any reasonable estimation of compensation due.

Is this to imply Boozer's production somehow increases if he plays more minutes, that he's efficient, or what?

Boozer's contract has not been worth it when one looks at the rest of the team, what the Bulls were slated to pay players, and the cost of not successfully winning a title. The Bulls' salary cap figure now dictates what the team can and cannot do to the degree of legitimately considering amnestying one of the better forwards in the league. There's no ignorance in taking that position at all given the willingness of the team to commit to these players, nor is it a decision that should have been beyond the scope of this management's team to foresee if things went poorly. Boozer was simply the best the Bulls could buy at the time they had money available and it required an 'all-in' bet that the core players assembled could win a title.

I have always believed the Bulls were nothing more than several possessions away from a title shot, yet when you pair an expensive free agent signing along with some truly massive contract extensions for the current roster - the Bulls became financially hamstrung.

When those "few possessions" don't go your way, the team should not be looking at re-tooling the entirety of their bench to fit under a luxury tax figure and I can say that while being fully cognizant of Rose's injury with a team looking to rebuild in line with his recovery.

Boozer was never a player on any particular vertical trajectory coming to the Bulls given his age and I'm glad you are just as willing to admit the possibility that Boozer's performance declines than he remains consistent or improve.

By taking this stance, it's easy to show that this Bulls front office has taken quite the risk in pooling all of their allotted cap space into a few players they have amassed. It flies contrary to common belief that the front office is in any way conservative or risk averse. Hindsight will be 20/20, and I fear that by the time Boozer is gone, the Bulls will have been no closer than that 4-1 series loss to Miami to winning a title.

You cannot compare Boozer's relative dollar value with a field as awfully skewed as those players you listed. Sure there are some overpaid individuals there as well, but averages with dollar figures simply never turn out to be proper considering the timing of contract negotiations in the NBA.

The best part is that Boozer's production actually improves if you compare the relative worth of the players presented with any reasonable estimation of compensation due.

which further proves my point... when factoring in what those guys would get in the open market, it further suggests that Boozer's contract is 100% acceptable.

Is this to imply Boozer's production somehow increases if he plays more minutes, that he's efficient, or what?

Nope... just saying, if you go by minutes played, Boozer still played the average amount of minutes the others played. They were only spread out over 66 games though, which makes his contract even more acceptable since he hasn't missed any games since the 2010-11 season.

Boozer's contract has not been worth it when one looks at the rest of the team, what the Bulls were slated to pay players, and the cost of not successfully winning a title. The Bulls' salary cap figure now dictates what the team can and cannot do to the degree of legitimately considering amnestying one of the better forwards in the league. There's no ignorance in taking that position at all given the willingness of the team to commit to these players, nor is it a decision that should have been beyond the scope of this management's team to foresee if things went poorly. Boozer was simply the best the Bulls could buy at the time they had money available and it required an 'all-in' bet that the core players assembled could win a title.

Sure it's been worth it. The Bulls were going to lose that cap space due to Rose's and Noah's extensions no matter what. In doing so, the Bulls spent the money and have gotten a productive, albeit disappointment in the grand scheme of things, in Boozer. The Bulls were legit title contenders, and injuries plagued them and robbed them of what "could have been" last season. Of course now, the Bulls aren't title contenders with Rose out. Perhaps they once will be again if Rose returns to form this season (or definitely next season).

Sure, many think it's time to reboot. And that makes Boozer's contract the one to go. But factor in that we can easily amnesty him, and his contract is still completely, reinforced actually with all of these statements, into being a completely acceptable contract.

I have always believed the Bulls were nothing more than several possessions away from a title shot, yet when you pair an expensive free agent signing along with some truly massive contract extensions for the current roster - the Bulls became financially hamstrung.

When those "few possessions" don't go your way, the team should not be looking at re-tooling the entirety of their bench to fit under a luxury tax figure and I can say that while being fully cognizant of Rose's injury with a team looking to rebuild in line with his recovery.

That's fine and I agree mostly, but it has nothing to do with Boozer's contract not being acceptable.

Boozer was never a player on any particular vertical trajectory coming to the Bulls given his age and I'm glad you are just as willing to admit the possibility that Boozer's performance declines than he remains consistent or improve.

By taking this stance, it's easy to show that this Bulls front office has taken quite the risk in pooling all of their allotted cap space into a few players they have amassed. It flies contrary to common belief that the front office is in any way conservative or risk averse. Hindsight will be 20/20, and I fear that by the time Boozer is gone, the Bulls will have been no closer than that 4-1 series loss to Miami to winning a title.

Completely agreed.

Originally Posted by bullishsince87

Wow i have heard it all, you guys fancy stats and crunching up numbers basically states that boozer is underated and under paid. I will no longer discuss carlos boozer anymore.

did you read his post? Very little had anything to do with your argument it's not crunching numbers.... it's validation of his performance to his contract compared around the league. nice try tho champ

Sure it's been worth it. The Bulls were going to lose that cap space due to Rose's and Noah's extensions no matter what. In doing so, the Bulls spent the money and have gotten a productive, albeit disappointment in the grand scheme of things, in Boozer.

This is the only place I think our opinions differ - mainly because it was Noah's extension + Boozer's contract that cemented the Bulls' roster (something we had already discussed ad nauseum). While I'm glad the Bulls took a ride on the Booz cruise, I can't help but look back and wonder what else they could have gotten with that cap space (multiple role players, less long term guarantees opening up other free agency possibilities, trade potential etc.). I would argue the Bulls would be a top tier competitor with or without Boozer and similarly can't help look back and wonder "what if.

For me, Boozer epitomizes the lack of flexible planning that will have cost the Bulls the early portion of Derrick's career. It's not a bad thing to admit to, just disappointing.

did you read his post? Very little had anything to do with your argument it's not crunching numbers.... it's validation of his performance to his contract compared around the league. nice try tho champ

I agree that we can't help but look back and wonder what opportunities may have presented themselves and how timely of a fashion other deals and contracts could have come to fruition. Ideally... I was hoping the Bulls would go after David Lee instead of Boozer. You'd be getting essentially 90% of the production for 106% the contract spanning over an extra year. I think the money saved in the initial year might have netted someone else who was a greater player than Brewer or Korver.

What could have happened and how things would have turned out, we can relatively talk about for years to come. It's a good thing though, and likewise I am glad the Bulls took the risk signing the guys they did in the off-season of 2010. Am I content with how things turned out? No, because we still don't have a ring.